Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
MSNBCW 9
CSPAN 2
CNNW 1
CSPAN2 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
cain and lindsey graham are so busy attacking susan rice. well maybe it's because -- think about this, if the president can't appoint susan rice, then he would have to appoint john kerry and that would open up a massachusetts senate seat for scott brown. so it could all be a way of getting back another republican in the united states senate. don't know for sure. just sayin'. all right. we'll look into that and a whole lot more here but first standing by with today's current news update, lisa ferguson in los angeles. hi lisa. take it away. >> hey bill, thanks. good morning everyone. as president heads to meet with leaders of the business world this afternoon politico is reporting that john boehner and his leadership team are making plans to meet with some of these very same executives. now the irony here is that obama and boehner still have no plans to meet themselves face-to-face. the two did meet before congress' thanksgiving recess along with the other two three members of the house and the senate. they had plans to
. >> are you working with senator schumer, he and lindsey graham have said they are already working on a piece of legislation. >> we are. we have issues with senator schumer's specific ideas, but we applaud his enthusiasm. we're trying to get him on the set of key elements of comprehensive immigration reform that are important to us. >> where would you disagree with him? >> a national id card, we think that does not need to be part of the solution to fixing a broken immigration system. >> to you see any republican allies going forward? >> john mccain has always been an incredible on this. lindsey graham has been good. we are seeing more and more interest in the house from people that i think will make themselves more known as we get into the new year. we are incredibly excited that the coming together of the latino community in this last election has awakened a bipartisan agreement that we need to act on immigration once and for all. we look forward to making it happen. >> what are the odds and we go over the cliff or get some kind of deal? >> i pray to god that we reach an agreement as a nati
lindsey graham, kelly ayotte and -- >> they were upset. john mccain over the weekend. >> john mccain backed up. >> so it's really cool when she said i'm sorry. >> she did the brave thing and went right in there and said i want to -- >> how did that work. >> and talked about her initial account of the attack and explained to them she was relying on faulty intelligence and talking points from the intelligence community. >> they said? >> they said, you know what, we still don't get it. >> throw the video. >> we are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. it is clear that the information that she gave the american people was incorrect. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> if you don't know what happened just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and i want to say -- >> i'm more troubled today knowing having met with the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice. clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong, in fact, ambassad
graham cannot seem to give the president even the smallest bit of credit when, you know, this is his foreign policy, this is what he talked about in terms of diplomacy over sabre rattling, and it's working? >> unfortunately, senator mccain and senator graham remind me of the kids on the playground and they need to be put in time-out. what we know is that it was important, actually, for the president and for secretary clinton to are the space they needed without all the commentary from u.s. elected officials to conduct what was a really important and catalytic diplomatic moment. >> you know, talking about having the space to actually do their jobs, republicans have been hammering the president over benghazi. frankly, they started it almost immediately after those attacks. lindsey graham today sent the president a five-page letter with a list of questions on it. here's just one example. he says, can you please account, as you did during the raid on osama bin laden's compound in pakistan, for your actions during the seven-plus hours our consulate was under attack? now, i have never hear
in and conservatives are starting to stray with conditions. here is south carolina senator lindsey graham. >> ly violate the pledge, long story short for the good of the country only if democrats will do entitlement reform. >> that's a whole nother conversation. on the issue of taxes warren buffett has written an op-ed in "the new york times" today renewing his stire to see taxes go up on people like him and him himself. in the op-ed he says people who make between a million and $10 million should see their taxable rate go up to 30% and those who make more than $10 million should be taxed at 35%. we'll be back after the break. see you on the other side. as i looked out across the battlefield at antietam. i saw the future of one great nation. but only barely, because the sun was like, way in my grill. george mcclellan, the general, hands me his pair of foster grant sunglasses, and i could see! my wife, mary todd, found them so fetching. >> he looked so fine i started to call him babe-raham lincoln. >> i was like, mary, please. >> you look like a baby,
. and you look everybody is saying it, john boehner, mitch mcconnell peter king lindsay graham, on and on and on. all of these republicans coming out and saying we agree, you can't do it by spending cuts alone. you have got to raise revenues and we're on board, and we're willing to break the grover norquist pledge. these guys have totally recognized the american people agree with obama, and so therefore they are going to change their ways. here is my advise to all of you, all right. don't believe it. this is a con game. this is a shell game that the republicans are playing. let's listen to some of the voices. here for example is saxby channedless. it's valid now but times have changed significantly. and i care more about this country than i do about a 20-year old pledge. >> bill: oh, yeah. he is setting himself up there as oh, man, i love my country, more than i love grover norquist. peter king yesterday. >> i agree entirely, a pledge you signed 18 years ago is for that congress. if i were in congress in 1841 i would have signed the declaration of war agai
is wrong capping deductions to buy down the debt. >> graham has been saying raising taxes to give politicians more money to continue spending doesn't solve any problem at all. it's not a piece of solving the problem. >> allowing tax cuts to expire generate average of $82.4 billion a year and would run the government for 8.5 days. the reality is similar to what romney laid out in the campaign. my plan is bring down rates and deductions at the same time so revenue stays in. we bring down rates to get people working. >> they are meeting with ceos, caterpillar and goldman sachs and other key players on the fiscal issues. erskine bowles, coauthor of the simpson-bowles plan, they want the business community to hear their ideas after president obama met with ceos two weeks ago. a big deal should include spending cut and reforms. >> chief white house correspondent ed henry is reporting that both sides cannot agree on whether they are still talking. >> the republicans suggest fiscal talk hit impasse and demand that president obama show leadership to break it. >> we'll wait on the president
. so let's see. john mccain, lindsey graham, blah blah, have accused the white house of stripping for political reasons. the director of the c.i.a. and now current intelligence officials have said no. intelligence agencies changed it not the white house. i don't understand why we're even talking about this still. let's see. he said the intelligence community made substantial analytical changes with the talking points were sent to the government agency, partners for their feedback. there were no substantive changes made to the talking points after they left the intelligence community. period. another anonymous official echoed him saying they were made based on intelligence and legal purposes. first the individual about the individuals linked to al-qaeda was derived from classified sources. classified. second were so tenuous. they still are. it makes sense to be cautious before pointing fingers so you don't set off a chain of circular and self-reinforcing assumptions. third is it important to not prejudice an
of her as a spokesman for the administration. one suspects that senators graham and mccain and ayotte have other reasons for opposing her and are using this as an excuse but it's fairly flimsy because while there are legitimate questions to be asked about what happened in benghazi -- >> but dana, hang on a second. if you have a problem with susan rice, let her be nominated, challenge her, and go through due process. why do this on the basis of intelligence that she had received that's consistent with the information that she was given by the cia? >> not only is it illogical, it is counterproductive because they're putting the president in a position of saying he's going to nominate her if he wasn't before because now he's not going to look like he's caving in or backing down. so they're going to achieve the exact opposite of what they're purporting to want. >> absolutely astonishing. goldie, conservatives, as we know, are attacking ambassador rice for admitting that the initial intelligence was wrong in one respect, that there was no process in benghazi, but she's admitted that the in
with -- she will, meet with john mccain and lindsey graham and a couple of other senators and try to explain herself. she shouldn't have to do that. i think it is embarrassing. kevin is calling from chicago. what do you think kevin? >> caller: hey, how do youing, bill? >> bill: good to hear from you. >> caller: if they were a legitimate news organization, wouldn't you go with the fact -- take whatever your guest says and you go with it. but since everybody knows they're the mouthpiece of the republicans, i find it amusing that they're so inept they don't even see what their guest is going to say. it is like how dumb are they? it just reinforcing the bumper sticker on my car as i drive to work this morning. fox news, the more you watch the less you know. >> bill: i like that! send me one. where did you get it? kevin, it let me tell you doing a lot of tv, making a living at it. whenever you're a guest on program like that, they do what's called a preinterview. they don't tell you the questions they're going to as
with his shadow, lindsey graham, and their new third amigo, new hampshire senator kelly ayotte, they released a joint statement today, praising the cease-fire declaration, but then adding were for good measure, quote, what happens in the middle east will impact america's vital national security interests for the foreseeable future and stronger, smarter american leadership is desperately needed. smarter leadership! take it from john mccain. remember, john mccain's big idea on foreign policy at the moment is that we should not have a secretary of state at all right now. john mccain suggesting that he will personally block anybody from being confirmed as secretary of state in the second term of the obama administration, because according to john mccain, u.n. ambassador susan rice, who's a likely candidate for secretary of state, she once said something wrong on the sunday shows. in the days after the attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, back in september, susan rice went on the sunday shows and gave the administration's intelligence agency-approved talking points, explaining
is meeting with senators john mccain lindsey graham and kelly iop. they have been critical of her remarks in the aftermath of benghazi. she described that as a spontaneous attack based on the in tell she had from the intelligence community. there could be some substance to the plan that president obama plans to nominate her for secretary of state. she will meet with other lawmakers later this week. president obama has been unwaiving in his support of her calling republican attacks on her outrageous. >> according to official announcement, the president of mexico and the president plan to talk about economic development and bored concerns. while there is no second sit down scheduled for the president and congressional leaders he did speak to john boehner and harry reid over the weekend about avoiding the fiscal cliff. the president will meet with small business owners today. tomorrow he meets with middle class americans who would be affected by tax hikes and more business leaders. friday he's going to travel to hatfield pennsylvania where he will give campaign style remarks to get support f
reform are they? you heard lindsey graham say he is willing to change position on taxes if democrats come to the table with entitlement reform. president obama privately indicated he is willing to stick his neck out and durbin willing to do that and will nor liberal democrats come to the table with entitlement reform. we'll see if that is a bigger dynamic that changes this week. >> what is the danger i guess is one question because there are democrats like patty murray saying it isn't a cliff, it is a slope. >> the danger is a massive sudden drop in government spending and even if you hate government spending, spending does keep the economy going and when you cut that much spending all at once abruptly you create a shock to the economy and that is dangerous and there are economists that say it could send us into recession again. >> it is not going to happen immediately on january 1st is their point. >> the alternative perspective is if you believe in preserving entitlements, social security, an eventual deal, a real deal, how much different would it really look from what is on the table w
met with because they had been among her harshest critics, senators graham and mccain. today's meeting was different because she met with a republican who was among the remaining centerist republicans in the senate -- one of the most likely to throw susan rice a lifeline. it didn't happen. >> i continue to be troubled by the fact that the u.n. ambassador decided to play what was essentially a political role at the height of a contentious presidential election campaign. >> reporter: after meeting with rice for more than an hour, collins emerged questioning her judgment in giving the public what turned out to be incorrect information in the days after the deadly attack in benghazi. and the main republican was lukewarm about the prospect of rice as secretary of state. if president obama were to nominate susan rice to be the next secretary of state, could you support that nomination? >> i would need to have additional information before i could support her nomination. >> reporter: collins has gone out of her way to support rice in the past. even introducing rice family ties to maine at a c
xrooe hensive immigration reforce. >> i think ted cruz. lindsey graham and john mccain. i think people like paul ryan nf the house. people who come out of a sort of reagan-esque, kemp-esque pro growth camp within the republican party. i think there's a big opportunity for them to weigh in on the debate. >> when people talk comprehensive reform the big issue, a big issue, probably the biggest, is there a path to citizenship for people who were here. governor romney was firm on that point. did he leave the party on immigration in a bad place? >> i think the party has been suffering on the issue of immigration for years. i think the problem transcends mitt romney. i don't think his position helped the -- helped the republican problem but it predates him. the failure of mccain/kennedy was something republicans got blamed for. in the 1990s there were some really nasty debates and very few, you know, very few republican voices willing to stand up on the side of immigration reform. we've been suffering -- look, there is a nativist, isolationist protectionist strand within the republican party
the weekend, i'll close with this, on a television show with senator lindsey graham of south carolina, who said publicly regardless of this grover norquist pledge, my pledge is -- i'm from pra phrasing, my pledge is to the people of america. we need more on both sides of the aisle to step up in that spirit to avoid this fiscal cliff. we can. with the president's leadership and the cooperation of the speaker we can get it done. for ten days, not much has happened. there's been a big thanksgiving break, a lieutenant of turkey and stuffing, now let's get back to business. we're back in session. roll up our sleeves, get it done. we can address this fiscal cliff and set up a plan with the president that is reasonable. weernd to do that on a bipartisan basis. and -- we need to do that on a bipartisan basis. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator would hold. under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved and under the previous order, senators are permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. for the information of the senate, the pending busine
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)